2 B

C. C. 3

4 丁

5. A stock company

[Defendant-Appellee]

Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 5 million won.

피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁이 위 각 벌금을 납입하지 아니하는 경우 각 금 100 , 000원을 1일로

Defendants shall be confined to the Labor House for the period of conversion.

피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁 , 주식회사 A에 대한 이 사건 공소사실 중 각 경영소식지 발간으로

The defendant B and the defendant B are not guilty of unfair labor practices.

피고인 乙에 대한 판결의 요지 , 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁 , 주식회사 A에 대한 판결 중 무죄부

the summary of each section shall be published respectively.

1 . 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁 , 주식회사 A의 신분

피고인 주식회사 A ( 이하 ' 피고인 A ' 이라 한다 ) 은 세종시 * * 에서 상시 근로자 620명 을 고용하여 자동차부품제조업을 영위하는 법인으로 사업주이고 , 피고인 甲은 A의 대 표이사로서 사업의 경영담당자이며 , 피고인 丙은 A의 인사노무담당 이사 , 피고인 丁은 피고인 A의 인사노무담당 부장이다 .

2. Unfair labor practices by control or intervention;

(a) Discriminatory treatment in labor unions with respect to deduction from cooperative expenses;

1 ) 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁의 공동범행

사용자는 근로자가 노동조합을 조직 또는 운영하는 것을 지배하거나 이에 개입 하는 행위를 하여서는 아니 된다 . 피고인 A에는 1996 . 에 설립된 전국금속노조 소속의 A지회 ( 이하 ' 제1노조 ' 라 한다 ) 와 2011 . 7 . 1 . 복수노조제도 시행 이후인 2012 . 2 . 22 . 설 립된 A 노동조합 ( 이하 ' 제2노조 ' 라 한다 ) 등 2개의 노조가 있다 . 피고인들은 2012 . 2 . 말경 제2노조와 단체협약을 체결하지 않아 조합비 공제에 대한 합의가 없었음에도 제2 노조에 2012 . 2 . 분 조합비를 인도해주기로 한 후 , 피고인 丁은 2012 . 2 . 27 . 경 피고인 A 급여담당자인 임 & & 에게 ' 제1노조를 탈퇴하고 제2노조에 가입한 조합원들의 기본급 1 % 적용 요망 - 명단은 취합하여 송부 예정 ' 이라는 내용의 메일을 발송하였고 , 2012 . 3 . 5 . 제2노조는 제1노조를 탈퇴하여 제2노조에 가입한 조합원 210명의 동의서를 첨부하 여 피고인 A 사측에 조합비 공제 요청을 하였다 . 그런데 제2노조의 설립일이 2012 . 2 . 22 . 이고 , 제2노조에 가입한 조합원 140명은 2012 . 2 . 22 . 이후에 1노조를 탈퇴하고 제2 노조에 가입을 한 것이기 때문에 피고인들은 제2노조의 2012 . 2 . 분 조합비 공제 요청 에 대해 제1노조와 협의를 하거나 2012 . 2 . 1 . 부터 2012 . 2 . 22 . 이후 각 조합원이 탈 퇴한 날까지의 조합비는 제1노조에 , 탈퇴한 날 이후의 조합비는 제2노조에 인도를 하 는 등의 절차를 거쳤어야 함에도 , 제2노조에 편의를 제공하기 위하여 제1노조의 동의 없이 2012 . 3 . 13 . 제2노조에 위 210명에 대한 2012 . 2 . 분 조합비를 일괄적으로 인도하 였다 . 이로써 피고인들은 조합비에 대해 제2노조에 편의를 제공하는 방법으로 제1노조 와 제2노조를 차별적으로 취급함으로써 제1노조 운영에 지배 · 개입을 하였다 .

2) Defendant A’s crime

피고인은 위 일시 , 장소에서 피고인의 사용인인 위 甲 , 丙 , 丁이 피고인의 업무 에 관하여 위와 같은 방법으로 조합비에 대해 제2노조에 편의를 제공하는 방법으로 제 1노조와 제2노조를 차별적으로 취급함으로써 제1노조 운영에 지배 · 개입을 하였다 .

(b) Discriminatory treatment in Articles 10 and 20;

1 ) 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁의 공동범행

After the Defendants entered into a collective agreement with Article 20 on August 22, 2012 with the labor union on September 12, 2012, the Defendants presented the contents unfavorable to Article 10 as stated in Article 10, such as “A company proposal against Article 10 on matters such as official duties, union expenses deduction, personnel principles, enactment and amendment of regulations, persons with disabilities, disciplinary procedures, persons with disabilities, disciplinary procedures, temporary employees, employment stability, temporary employees, new factories, reorganization of wage system, working hours, etc.” As a result, the Defendants provided unfavorable measures against Article 10 and Article 20 by offering a collective agreement unfavorable to Article 20, compared to Article 20.

2) Defendant A’s crime

피고인은 위 일시 , 장소에서 피고인의 사용인인 위 甲 , 丙 , 丁이 피고인의 업무 에 관하여 위와 같이 제2노조에 비해 제1노조에 불리한 단체협약안을 제시하는 방법으 로 제1노조를 제2노조와 차별적 취급함으로써 제1노조 운영에 지배 · 개입하였다 .

3. Violation of collective agreements;

A. Violation of the collective agreement on recess hours;

1) Defendant A’s crime

An employer shall not violate matters concerning the contents of a collective agreement signed or sealed in writing by both parties to the agreement, as well as the hours of recess, holidays, and vacations. Nevertheless, the Defendant, as the Defendant signed and sealed by both parties to the agreement on June 29, 2010, provides that “A company shall grant 60 minutes of heavy hours: Provided, That a company shall grant 12:30 minutes of heavy hours: Provided, That even though the said hours are called “12:30 hours during the daytime,” it shall be granted less hours of heavy hours from December 1, 201 to January 30, 201, as part of AS, such as AS, etc. working, including 1,373 hours during the recess hours, due to such reasons as storage, increase of production, etc. < Amended by Act No. 11010, Jun. 29, 201; Act No. 11308, Dec. 31, 2012>

2) Defendant A’s crime

The Defendant, at the above date and at the place, committed the above act and violated the collective agreement by taking the employees of the Defendant into consideration the duties of the Defendant.

B. Violation of the collective agreement on safety and health

1) Defendant A’s crime

An employer shall not violate matters concerning safety and health and disaster relief among the contents of a collective agreement signed or sealed in writing by both parties. Nevertheless, according to Article 85(2) of the collective agreement signed and sealed by both parties to the collective agreement with the Trade Union on June 29, 2010, the Defendant provided that “if new employment or work is changed, eight hours (16 hours for employees engaged in dangerous work and dangerous work) shall be placed at the work site after providing safety education for new employment or work,” but he/she shall be placed at the work site from July 201 to January 201, 201, by inserting 14 employees, such as Kim* et al., a manager *, etc., put into the work site without safety education as stated in “attached safety education”. Accordingly, the Defendant violated matters concerning safety and health cooperation.

2) Defendant A’s crime

The Defendant, at the above date and at the place, violated the collective agreement by taking the above actions by the employees of the Defendant, who are the employees of the Defendant, under the jurisdiction of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1 . 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁의 각 일부 법정진술

1 . 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁에 대한 각 검찰피의자신문조서

1. (Omission) Each protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning the prosecutorial office;

1. (Ommission of Statement of Police) Each protocol of police statement;

1. A copy of each collective agreement (a copy);

1. Rules of employment;

1. A list of places of safety and health education, educational data, and safety and health participants;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Defendant A: Articles 90 and 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines); Article 92 subparag. 2 (b) and (d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Article 31(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

피고인 丙 , 丁 : 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제90조 , 제81조 제4호 , 형법 제30조 ( 벌 금형 선택 )

Defendant A: Articles 94, 90, and 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Articles 30, 92 subparag. 2(b) and (d), and 31(1) of the Criminal Act

1 . 경합범가중 ( 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁 , A )

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1 . 노역장유치 ( 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁 )

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁 , A 및 변호인의 주장에 대한 판단

먼저 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁 , A 및 변호인은 , 판시 범죄사실 기재와 같이 제2노조에 조합 비를 공제하여 인도한 사실은 있으나 , 조합비 일괄공제는 단체협약의 적용을 받는 사 항이 아닐 뿐만 아니라 제2노조의 공식적인 요청과 해당 조합원들 개인의 신청이 있었 으므로 노동조합의 조직 또는 운영에 지배 · 개입한 것은 아니라고 주장하므로 살피건 대 , 판시 각 증거에 의하면 조합비의 징수는 단체협약의 내용임이 인정되고 노동조합 의 활동에 있어서 조합비의 징수는 필수불가결한 요소인 점을 감안할 때 개별 근로자 가 어느 노조에 소속된 이상 임의로 처분할 수 없다고 봄이 상당하므로 , 이 사건과 같 이 사용자 측이 단체협약과 달리 제1노조에 귀속되어야 할 조합비를 다른 노조에 지급 하는 것은 부당노동행위에 해당한다 . 따라서 위 주장은 받아들일 수 없다 .

다음으로 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁 , A 및 변호인은 , 판시 범죄사실 기재와 같이 제2노조와 다른 단체협약 요구안을 제1노조에 제시한 사실은 인정하나 이는 제1노조와의 교섭 중 제시된 단순 협상안으로 최종안으로 볼 수 없고 제1노조와 합의된 단체교섭 잠정안이 제2노조와의 단체협약과 실질적으로 동일하므로 부당노동행위에 해당하지 않는다고 주 장하므로 보건대 , 판시 별지 ' 제1노조에 대한 회사요구안 ' 에 기재된 회사요구안이 이미 타결된 제2노조에 대한 단체협약에 비해 불리한 것으로서 제1노조 소속 조합원들의 노 동조합 활동을 위축시키거나 저해할 우려가 있고 , 결국 이로 인하여 제1노조 자체의 조직 또는 활동이 위축되거나 저해될 수밖에 없다고 보인다 . 이는 복수노조 상황에서 사용자가 노동조합간의 경쟁에 개입하거나 특정 조합을 우대하고 다른 조합을 차별하 는 정책을 실시해서는 아니 된다는 이른바 ' 사용자의 중립의무 ' 에 반하는 것으로 , 그 합의된 최종 결과 여하에 상관없이 사용자 측인 피고인들이 제1노조의 조직 또는 운영 에 개입한 부당노동행위에 해당한다고 보아야 하므로 , 위 주장 역시 받아들일 수 없다 .

In addition, Defendant A, A, and defense counsel acknowledged the fact that they had workers work during food hours as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, but argued that it cannot be viewed as a violation of a collective agreement since workers voluntarily provided compensation for overtime work, and therefore, it cannot be seen as a violation of the collective agreement. Thus, even though it is reasonable to view the part concerning recess hours as matters of a collective agreement in which individual workers are unable to dispose of at will, it does not seem to have any circumstance to deem that there was an agreement with Article 1 with respect to the change, and it is difficult to view the above monetary compensation as favorable to workers, and therefore, we cannot accept the above assertion.

Finally, Defendant A, A, and the defense counsel recognize the fact that regular safety and health education is delayed with 14 members as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, but the above employees are not members of the "student," but members of the first union, so the collective agreement is not applicable to not only the student intern, but also the members of the first union, so it is not a violation of the collective agreement. Thus, even if the collective agreement is applied, it is not only a certain period of time unless the time for conducting education is specified. Therefore, according to each evidence in the judgment, it is reasonable to view that the contents of the above collective agreement are prepared to protect the lives and bodies of newly employed employees, regardless of whether they join the labor union in accordance with the practice and the good faith principle. Thus, even if the above 14 members are not members of the labor union, the collective agreement prepared through autonomous consultation between the labor and management should be applied to the new employees timely. Therefore, the above Chapter 1 cannot be accepted.

Grounds for sentencing

이 사건으로 인하여 제1노조의 조직 또는 운영에 어느 정도 차질이 빚어졌을 것으로 는 보이나 , 피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁은 초범이거나 별다른 전과가 없는 점 , 이들은 회사의 구 성원으로서 회사의 방침에 따른 정상도 엿보이는 점 등에다가 이 사건 범행의 동기와 경위 , 범행 후의 정황 등 여러 양형조건을 종합할 때 주문 기재와 같이 형을 정함이 상당하다 .

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the defendants' unfair labor practices through the publication of the management newsletter among the facts charged in the instant case

피고인 甲 , 丙 , 丁 , A의 신분은 앞서 본 바와 같고 피고인 乙은 피고인 A의 대표이 사 보좌담당 부장으로 근로자에 관한 사항에 대해 사업주를 위하여 행동하는 사람이

Defendant A entered into a contract with Defendant A on November 2, 201 to resolve problems, such as the decline in the morale of employees due to poor performance, the absence of communication, and the decline in productivity due to wage increase, etc., and Defendant A, a subsidiary of the labor law firm G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) on November 2, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “G”) ** during the term of the contract with G from November 2, 2011 to October 31, 2012, “the consulting amount” of KRW 50,000,000 “monthly,” subject to consultation, including legal advice, management rationalization, employee education, and advice on the improvement of productivity, and “G entered into a contract with the content of “A” on November 16, 2011 to promote the attack of Defendant A’s labor dispute to the employees and to respond to the position of Defendant A’s attack at the time of the attack.

Defendant A, Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant B, according to the contents of the above G G’s consultation, are to publish the management newsletters in the name of “as to whether he was a know-how”*********. Defendant and Defendant B prepared the contents of each article, Defendant C reviewed the contents of the article, Defendant A finally approved the contents of the article, and Defendant A published **** *’s management newsletter.

In addition, the above defendants published articles on January 6, 2012 ***** * * 'at the end of the management newsletter No. 2' under the non-legal guidelines of the executive branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the union, and under the title of the title of the "I would like to change the production line due to the non-working of the first union", "I would like to change the two pages," and "I would like to change the two pages," respectively, the executive branch of the trade union and the representative of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the company must deal with the illegal acts in accordance with the law and principles. The purport of the article is that the company will be engaged in the illegal acts of Article 10 and the company will be engaged in the illegal acts of Article 10.

On January 6, 2012, the above Defendants criticize and intervene in the operation of Article 10 by continuously inserting an article that criticizes the activities under Article 10 in the management newsletter, as shown in the [Attachment 1] list from around that time to July 27, 2012, as well as an article that criticizes the activities under Article 18 over 18 times in total, or by continuously posting it in the management newsletter, compared to Article 20.

한편 , 피고인 A은 위 일시 , 장소에서 피고인의 사용인인 위 甲 , 丙 , 丁 , 乙이 피고인 의 업무에 관하여 위와 같이 제1노조의 활동을 비판하거나 , 제2노조에 비해 제1노조를 차별적으로 취급하는 내용의 기사를 경영소식지에 연속적으로 게재함으로써 제1노조의 운영에 지배 · 개입하였다 .

2. Determination:

If an employer expressed an opinion through a speech, intra-company broadcast, notice, or letter, etc., along with the contents of the opinion expressed, and if it is recognized as an employer to control or intervene in the organization or operation of a trade union or operation and activities of a trade union, by taking into account the situation, time, place, method, impact on the operation or activities of a trade union, the act of controlling or participating in the organization or operation of a trade union is established as "an act of controlling or participating in the organization or operation of a trade union" under Article 81 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and it does not necessarily require the result of infringing the right to organize of the trade union (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do388, Sept. 8, 2006). However, an employer has the freedom to express its opinion, and thus, the employer does not merely express a critical opinion on the activities of a trade union or hold a collective briefing session against the workers, but does not contain the influence or influence of the trade union on the operation or operation of a trade union, etc.

In light of the above legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to view the case as having elements that may harm the autonomy of the labor union, such as the circumstances of disadvantageous threat such as disciplinary action or the promise to provide benefits, etc., or that there was an intention to control or intervene in the organization or operation of the labor union, and there is no evidence suggesting that there was an act that may otherwise be an intention to control or intervene in the organization or operation of the labor union. Rather, it is reasonable to see that the use in each of the above management newsletter was an act to inform the company of its position in response to the allegations in Article 10 within the scope of the freedom of the press permitted on the part of the employer.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and the Defendants are found not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the verdict of innocence is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.